Characters in search of a soul

Anyone who has read Rebecca Goldstein knows her remarkable knack for combining abstract philosophical ideas with the all-too-concrete dramas of everyday life.

In 36 Arguments she has done it again. In her latest novel, psychologist of religion Cass Selzter has been thrust into the spotlight after the publication of his bestselling book The Varieties of Religious Illusion and the rise of "new atheism".

Considered an antidote to the Dawkins's of the world, Seltzer has been dubbed the "atheist with a soul" for his nuanced understanding of religious experience, honed from his years living as an exiled Hassidic Jew and from studies under the mentorship of a famed religious philosopher.

Seltzer's "boyish" looks can't help but conjure images of psychologist Steven Pinker, Goldstein's other half. Other allusions to real people are less veiled: Seltzer's shrewd New York agent, Sy Aurbach, with his white suits and fedoras and his website precipice.org is unmistakably literary agent John Brockman, while the supplement-popping futurist Luke Nanovitch is, in no uncertain terms, inventor Ray Kurzweil.

Seltzer is at times an annoyingly hapless character, but his haplessness is the haplessness of mankind in the face of the "tremendousness of our improbable existence." For while Goldstein's recipe at times seems two parts philosophy and only one part storytelling, the novel is ultimately one about what Cass's mentor calls psychopoiesis: soul-making.

From Cass's girlfriend, Lucinda, who has to choose between her own career and living in Cass's shadow to Azarya, the mathematical prodigy who has to choose between life as a Hassidic leader and the pursuit of genius, Goldstein's characters struggle to define themselves and carve out meaning in a seemingly meaningless universe.

Goldstein is, as always, a lovely and thoughtful writer whose respect and understanding for her characters might well earn her the epithet "philosophical novelist with a soul".

Book Information:
36 Arguments for the Existence of God by Rebecca Goldstein
Pantheon, $27.95

I dont see bobby comment making sense to me.. yet to read Rebecca Goldstein stuffs!

human michael
on February 2, 2010 3:12 PM

this article's description as "with a soul" seems to be in stark contrast against any understanding i have of science. religious superstition is the enemy of scientific thought and progress. the very concept of the soul is at the heart of the type of superstitious, unsupported belief that allows religion to permeate. hmm

Thabo Monare
on February 2, 2010 3:31 PM

Religion is not necessarily superstition. The concept of the soul is nothing more that the concept of 'me' - a stream of consciousness in some religious views.
Science's real problem is an inability to properly understand the 'human condition' and yet having a superioirty complex and claiming to be the only source of truth.

Jesse
on February 2, 2010 4:11 PM

I absolutely agree with Thabo. I can't believe many people who claim to be of "Scientific" mindset are so ignorant about what Religions say, much less understand it. They turn a blind eye on it and say "It's superstition", when in fact, Science is based on "Hypothesis". Hypothesis does not equal truth, just as much as believing in something unproven equals truth, but when you apply the belief (Scientific or Religious) and you have results, then you know it's true. It's called applied Science, and yes, Religions do have some applicable Science, as much as it is wrapped in fables, myth, and other mumbo jumbo that has been re-edited over the thousands of years, it still contains some basic Wisdom. Wisdom here is the key word. While Science tries to understand the "Physical" aspect of this reality, Religion tries to understand the "Personal" aspect of life, and the thing that applies to us the most is Wisdom. What am I going to want to know more? Whether one of Jupiter's moons is 70% methane, or whether my actions will have bad or good repercussions?

I was an atheist once, until I realized how stupid it was. LOL

Adam Atkins
on February 2, 2010 4:15 PM

Thabo, is there a discipline that does thoroughly describe or explain the 'human condition' better than science?

Perhaps a good starting point would be to define what you mean by the 'human condition' e.g. do you mean everything that makes us human and seperates us from other organisms? Or do you refer to a specific part of 'humanness' that can't be or isn't explained by science at present and is explained better by some other practice/discipline?

Christopher
on February 2, 2010 4:16 PM

Thabo, science isn't the only source of "truth" and I doubt you could find many real scientists that would claim such. What they could claim is that science is the best method we have for finding out concrete truths about the physical world. It is a method for making sure of our knowledge, so we don't fool ourselves. Your soul concept is perfectly explainable by psychology, which is a science. That "superiority complex" is nothing more than confidence in a system that works better than any other system of knowing we have.

What is this human condition you mention? You really don't think it can be ascertained through knowledge? We are bipeds, descended from scrappy apes that happened to be smarter and luckier than the competition and between that time and ours, we have built culture after culture, making all kinds of crazy ideas up to satisfy our curiosity and pass the time; or to bind our social groups and control them.

If you were alluding to a supernatural condition then your religious ideas are, in fact, superstition, because there is no such thing. The funny thing is how bitter people get at skeptics, simply because they themselves are powerless to demonstrate what they "know", or to use that "knowledge" for any good purpose, except to make themselves feel better.

Stanislav
on February 2, 2010 5:09 PM

Book sounds interesting, not that I'm gonna read it, and definitely a pertinent topic for NS to post. Only gripe i have is how it was brought to my attention.. by NS twitter feed.. which stated "Atheist with a soul takes on the tremendousness of our improbable existence"

There's nothing Atheistic about this book! Why has this person been dubbed an "Atheist with a soul"? Because he's clearly not an Atheist. Agnostic no doubt but... anyway maybe I'm missing the point and I am using a Dawkinsian criteria to make this point, who this chap's supposed to be the "Alka Seltzer" for.

One other thing, the chap who says the idea of a soul is in stark contrast with science?? Dude, how do you know you are here?!? Science will, one day, answer this question - now if that aint some soulful schiz then I dun know what is!

LeaderDeslokOfPlanetGamalon
on February 2, 2010 6:43 PM

Logic dictates the existence of a creator. There are 3 possibilities 1. God created the universe; 2. Hypothesis: The universe was created by the collision of two or more parallel universes or the universe always was; or 3. the universe created itself. Which is the more logical answer? 3. violates the law of Cause and effect; the 2 thermo law, and is utterly preposterous. 2. Spawns many questions, for instance: Why is there no empirical evidence to support this? Since this is not testable, verifiable, and falsifiable is it not just a proclamation of some sort of faith, that so many “scientists” distain? It has been hypothesized that two parallel universes collided to create our universe. They have tried to explain this by proposing that ours is not the only universe, but perhaps one of billions that are both unseen and unknowable. If true, they reason we would not be so special after all---we simply would have been the one grand lottery winner of all those universes. This multiverse theory seems like something out of a Star Trek episode, and unlike good science, it is not based upon one shred of empirical evidence.
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” Sir Fred Hoyle
Two “parallel” universes colliding also violates mathematical axiom: 2 parallel lines or planes have no points of intersection. If you say the 2 universes came together then they are no longer parallel and it just spawns more questions: What caused them to come together? Why hasn't our universe collided with another? What would be the effect of colliding universes? How could colliding universes create a new universe with the necessary ingredients for stars? Galaxies? Planets? life? Why is there no empirical evidence of this? Scientists like Hoyle have been stunned by the overwhelming odds against life occurring by unguided natural processes. Such odds are like purchasing one ticket for a hundred Power Ball lotteries, and being lucky enough to win them all. How likely is that---unless the outcome was fixed by someone who had control of the numbers? And that is exactly what has many scientists like Hoyle are thinking---that the numbers were fixed by a superintellect monkeying with nature’s laws.
1. A creator is the first cause, therefore the cause effect law is satisfied. Many Atheists ask "then who created God (the creator)? The obvious answer to this question is simple: Time for us is a unidirectional straight line along a Cartesian coordinate axes. Indeed for us existence starts at the origin of the plane(s) and goes off positively along one of the axes. “For the Creator, existence is the plane itself that is infinitely long and wide. Therefore, the creator has no point of origin, no point of termination, and was not created; indeed He always was and always will be--sound familiar?”—Dr. Hugh Ross. The materialistic belief system cannot answer 2 simple questions: What happened before the Big Bang? and What caused the Big Bang to happen? Before the Big Bang model was widely accepted by science and the fact that the universe is not static but expanding many (including Einstein) thought the universe was static and therefore eternal. If this was the case, they argued that with infinite "throws of the dice of chance" life could have emerged from lifelessness. Edwin Hubble discovered that our universe is expanding. An expanding universe means if you go far enough back, there must have been a beginning.
Cosmologist George Smoot's experiments proved that all matter, energy, space, and even time itself came into being at one point in time. Prior to that discovery, scientists committed to materialism were content to believe that the universe was self-existent, and didn't require someone to start it.
“It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.” Stephen Hawking
Since the universe did indeed have a starting point what started it? Why did it start and for what purpose? As we humans learn more about the universe about us, we cannot deny the underlying creative intelligence shown in it all—to do so is folly. If God truly is and did create it all as we learn more about His creation shouldn't we be in effect also learning more about Him?
Many unbelievers say, “well what God should one worship”? Someone once said, "There is a principle which is a bar to all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance--that principle is contempt prior to investigation"--Herbert Spencer. If you search a topic that you have preconceived contempt for, you cannot make an accurate assessment as to the validity of the argument. Despite facts to the contrary, you will always side with the illogical just because it "feels" right.
Many say, “The only way I'll believe is if I see proof”. First of all that shows great arrogance! You are in effect saying, "Hey you, God who created the universe and everything in it, come down here to ‘little ol’ me’ and prove your existence!!" Kind of self-centered don't you think? Secondly, we can go back to Mr. Spencers quote. If you don't research the writings of those who have had contact with this creator then how will you know which is the right one? Finally, If God did come down and say, "Here I am" to everyone, you would no longer have freewill, you'd have to believe in Him, you’d have no choice. Do you want someone to love you because they have to or because they freely choose to love you? Think about it for a moment.
Charles Darwin was a genius who correctly explained why viruses mutate, how insects have evolved resistance to our pesticides, and dogs, cats, and humans, come in various shapes sizes and colors. These observable changes in nature within a particular species are called microevolution. But Darwin made a big leap from the observable to the theoretical by proposing macroevolution. He theorized that all of life developed gradually over time as one species evolved into a new species. However, Darwin's leap of macroevolution has never been empirically verified. Thus when scientists take issue with Darwin's theory of evolution, they are not debating changes evident within a species. They are simply pointing out the fact that no evidence exists that all of life evolved by undirected natural selection. Darwin proposed a way to test his theory of macroevolution. During the lengthy process, millions of transitional species would leave a trail of fossil evidence. A century and a half later, there is an abundance of evidence, with over a billion fossils that have been scrutinized. And it seems to be going against Darwin’s theory. The transitional fossils Darwin predicted would validate macroevolution are embarrassingly absent. Even ardent evolutionist, Niles Eldredge admits, No one has found any such in-between creatures…and there is a growing conviction among many scientists that these transitional forms never existed.” Niles Eldredge
Another setback for materialists is the Cambrian explosion, a period where complex life forms developed much quicker than gradual evolution predicts. Stephen Jay Gould, a staunch advocate of materialistic evolution, sums up the problem for Darwinists:
“We do not know why the Cambrian explosion could establish all major anatomical designs so quickly. … The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.” Stephen Jay Gould
Dr. Robert Jastrow is a theoretical physicist who joined NASA when it was formed in 1958. Jastrow helped establish the scientific goals for the exploration of the moon during the Apollo lunar landings. He set up and directed NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which conducts research in astronomy and planetary science. Jastrow wrote these thoughts that summarize the view of many scientists.
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
DNA
Molecular biologists have discovered that this basic molecule of life DNA is far too intricately complex to have originated by chance. DNA’s intricate complexity caused its co-discoverer, Francis Crick, to call it “almost a miracle.” Microsoft founder Bill Gates says that the software of DNA is “far far more complex than any software we have ever developed.” The amount of DNA that would fit on a pinhead contains information equivalent to a stack of paperback books that would encircle the earth 5,000 times. And DNA operates like a language with its own extremely complex software code. The coding behind DNA is pointing to a designer of such intelligence that it staggers the imagination. That view was stated by none other than the world’s leading atheist for the past 50 years, Professor of Philosophy, Antony Flew. In Flew’s fifty years of proclaiming atheism in university classrooms, books, and lectures he argued that science had all but disproved God. He then wrote:e saw the intelligence behind DNA, this leading atheist reversed his long-held belief:
“What I think the DNA material has done is to show that intelligence must have been involved….It now seems to me that the finding of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.” Antony Flew
Although this former atheist is not a believer in a personal God, he now admits that the evidence points to some form of intelligence behind our origins.
Science is the search for truth and knowledge. When that search becomes clouded by an agenda, whether theistic or anti-theistic, science’s core becomes corrupted and its effectiveness at understanding and explaining the truth as it actually is, is no longer valid. Plato’s Socrates summed it up when he said, “Follow the evidence, where ever it leads.”

Roger
on February 3, 2010 4:02 AM

You occasionally hear people stating that "science is only one way of knowing truth", as in a prior post on this forum. I have yet to hear anyone actually present a feasible, verifiable, reliable alternative "way".

Flopsy
on February 3, 2010 10:52 PM

I thought this was a very poor review of book that may have a lot of potential. In addition to the unprofessional typo in the 2nd paragraph (Selzter), the whole review is very ambiguous which suggests that these words were thrown together after a quick skim.

Flopsy
on February 3, 2010 11:13 PM

I thought this was a very poor review of book that may have a lot of potential. In addition to the unprofessional typo in the 2nd paragraph (Selzter), the whole review is very ambiguous which suggests that these words were thrown together after a quick skim.

tony kayoumi
on February 17, 2010 12:08 PM

I wonder if all we ever know for truth is scientific in nature, all other theorems and religious experiences can be defined only by the person, or organism, that experiences. Even then, how would we know what we are experiencing is true and not illusion. Even further, Decartes famous saying is possibly unreliiable and cannot be proven, only assumed and believed in but belief alone does not guarantee reality. We could all be DNA and atomic bits and bites in some grand "Matrix" devised by a being or beings who wish to experience some sort of carporeal reality, while they themselves are only able to live as some form of "energy".

jim reid
on March 20, 2010 7:16 AM

im reading it and when i reach the end i will read it again; then i hope to be able to make a half decent comment;

Shriya
on September 5, 2010 3:08 AM

It took me 3 reads to actually understand what this review was going on about...

Hi the information on this blog is just incredible it keeps us coming back time and time again ,personally i met my wife using this site so i couldnt love it any more i have done my best to to word out about this site as i know that others need to see this thang ,cheers for all the effort spent in making this fabulous site ! ok,nice one Danny

Himangsu Sekhar Pal
on January 24, 2011 11:29 AM

Proof That There Is A God
Or
Proof that God has not kept Himself hidden

A, Properties of a Whole Thing

If at the beginning there was something at all, and if that something was the whole thing, then it can be shown that by logical necessity that something will have to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless. This is by virtue of that something being the whole thing. Something is the whole thing means there cannot be anything at all outside of that something; neither space, nor time, nor matter, nor anything else. It is the alpha and omega of existence. But, if it is the whole thing, then it must have to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless. Otherwise it will be merely a part of a bigger whole thing. Now let us denote this something by a big X. Now, can this X be in any space? No, it cannot be. If it is, then where is that space itself located? It must have to be in another world outside of X. But by definition there cannot be anything outside of X. Therefore X cannot be in any space. Again, can this X have any space? No, it cannot have. If we say that it can have, then we will again be in a logical contradiction. Because if X can have any space, then that space must have to be outside of it. Therefore when we consider X as a whole, then we will have to say that neither can it be in any space, nor can it have any space. In every respect it will be spaceless. For something to have space it must already have to be in some space. Even a prisoner has some space, although this space is confined within the four walls of his prison cell. But the whole thing, if it is really the whole thing, cannot have any space. If it can have, then it no longer remains the whole thing. It will be self-contradictory for a whole thing to have any space. Similarly it can be shown that this X can neither be in time, nor have any time. For a whole thing there cannot be any ‘before’, any ‘after’. For it there can be only an eternal ‘present’. It will be in a timeless state. If the whole thing is in time, then it is already placed in a world where there is a past, a present, and a future, and therefore it is no longer the whole thing. Now, if X as a whole is spaceless, timeless, then that X as a whole will also be changeless. There might always be some changes going on inside X, but when the question comes as to whether X itself is changing as a whole, then we are in a dilemma. How will we measure that change? In which time-scale shall we have to put that X in order for us to be able to measure that change? That time-scale must necessarily have to be outside of X. But there cannot be any such time-scale. So it is better not to say anything about its change as a whole. For the same reason X as a whole can never cease to be. It cannot die, because death is also a change. Therefore we see that if X is the first thing and the whole thing, then X will have the properties of spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness by virtue of its being the whole thing. It is a logical necessity. Now, this X may be anything; it may be light, it may be sound, or it may be any other thing. Whatever it may be, it will have the above four properties of X. Now, if we find that there is nothing in this universe that possesses the above four properties of X, then we can safely conclude that at the beginning there was nothing at all, and that therefore scientists are absolutely correct in asserting that the entire universe has simply originated out of nothing. But if we find that there is at least one thing in the universe that possesses these properties, then we will be forced to conclude that that thing was the first thing, and that therefore scientists are wrong in their assertion that at the beginning there was nothing. This is only because a thing can have the above four properties by virtue of its being the first thing and by virtue of this first thing being the whole thing, and not for any other reason. Scientists have shown that in this universe light, and light only, is having the above four properties. They have shown that for light time, as well as distance, become unreal. I have already shown elsewhere that a timeless world is a deathless, changeless world. For light even infinite distance becomes zero, and therefore volume of an infinite space also becomes zero. So the only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that at the beginning there was light, and that therefore scientists are wrong in asserting that at the beginning there was nothing.
Another very strong reason can be given in support of our belief that at the beginning there was light. The whole thing will have another very crucial and important property: immobility. Whole thing as a whole thing cannot move at all, because it has nowhere to go. Movement means going from one place to another place, movement means changing of position with respect to something else. But if the whole thing is really the whole thing, then there cannot be anything else other than the whole thing. Therefore if the whole thing moves at all, then with respect to which other thing is it changing its position? And therefore it cannot have any movement, it is immobile. Now, if light is the whole thing, then light will also have this property of immobility. Now let us suppose that the whole thing occupies an infinite space, and that light is the whole thing. As light is the whole thing, and as space is also infinite here, then within this infinite space light can have the property of immobility if, and only if, for light even the infinite distance is reduced to zero. Scientists have shown that this is just the case. From special theory of relativity we come to know that for light even infinite distance becomes zero, and that therefore it cannot have any movement, because it has nowhere to go. It simply becomes immobile. This gives us another reason to believe that at the beginning there was light, and that therefore scientists are wrong in asserting that at the beginning there was nothing.
I know very well that an objection will be raised here, and that it will be a very severe objection. I also know what will be the content of that objection: can a whole thing beget another whole thing? I have said that at the beginning there was light, and that light was the whole thing. Again I am saying that the created light is also the whole thing, that is why it has all the properties of the whole thing. So the whole matter comes to this: a whole thing has given birth to another whole thing, which is logically impossible. If the first thing is the whole thing, then there cannot be a second whole thing, but within the whole thing there can be many other created things, none of which will be a whole thing. So the created light can in no way be a whole thing, it is logically impossible. But is it logically impossible for the created light to have all the properties of the whole thing? So what I intend to say here is this: created light is not the original light, but created light has been given all the properties of the original light, so that through the created light we can have a glimpse of the original light. If the created light was not having all these properties, then who would have believed that in this universe it is quite possible to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless? If nobody believes in Scriptures, and if no one has any faith in personal revelation or mystical experience, and if no one wants to depend on any kind of authority here, and if no one even tries to know Him through meditation, then how can the presence of God be made known to man, if not through a created thing only? So, not through Vedas, nor through Bible, nor through Koran, nor through any other religious books, but through light and light only, God has revealed himself to man. That is why we find in created light all the most essential properties of God: spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness.

Footnote: If the universe is treated as one whole unit, then it can be said to be spaceless, timeless. I first got this idea from an article by Dr. Lee Smolin read in the internet. Rest things I have developed. This is as an acknowledgement.

B. CLIMAX

I think we need no further proof for the existence of God. That light has all the five properties of the whole thing is sufficient. I will have to explain.
Scientists are trying to establish that our universe has started from nothing. We want to contradict it by saying that it has started from something. When we are saying that at the beginning there was something, we are saying that there was something. We are not saying that there was some other thing also other than that something. Therefore when we are saying that at the beginning there was something, we are saying that at the beginning there was a whole thing. Therefore we are contradicting the statement that our universe has started from nothing by the statement that our universe has started from a whole thing.
I have already shown that a whole thing will have the properties of spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness, immobility (STCDI). This is by logical necessity alone. It is logically contradictory to say that a whole thing can have space. Let us suppose that the whole thing is having space. Then the so-called whole thing along with the space that it is having will constitute the real whole thing. If my arguments that I have offered so far to show that the whole thing will always have the above five properties by virtue of its being the whole thing are sound, and if they cannot be faulted from any angle, then I can make the following statements:
1. In this universe only a whole thing can have the properties of STCDI by logical necessity alone.
2. If the universe has started from nothing, then nothing in this universe will have the properties of STCDI.
3. If the universe has started from a whole thing, then also nothing other than the initial whole thing will have the properties of STCDI. This is only because a whole thing cannot beget another whole thing.
4. But in this universe we find that light, in spite of its not being a whole thing, is still having the properties of STCDI.
5. This can only happen if, and only if, the initial whole thing itself has purposefully given its own properties to light, in order to make its presence known to us through light.
6. But for that the initial whole thing must have to have consciousness.
7. So, from above we can come to the following conclusion: the fact that light, in spite of its not being a whole thing, still possesses the properties of STCDI, is itself a sufficient proof for the fact that the universe has started from a conscious whole thing, and that this conscious whole thing is none other than God.